A friend recently sent me this link to a Fox News article with an example of how the media is blurring out images in its reporting of the terrorist attacks in Paris this week.

To avoid offending Muslims!

13 people (or perhaps more by now) dead from Islamist terrorists and the liberals are worried about offending the religion that spawned these murderers.

Disgusting, spineless and immoral.

The deaths of these innocent victims, civilian and police, along with those in recent incidents in Australia, the UK and here in Canada can be directly blamed on successive liberal governments too afraid to institute responsible immigration policies or to enforce compliance with local laws and customs.

Appeasement has never worked.

Equally guilty are those in government and the media that conspired to disarm the law-abiding population and severely punish those that do use their legally owned weapons for protection of themselves, their families or their property.

The final nail in the coffin of freedom is the condemnation of anyone who dares to criticise anyone else who is of a different race, religion or sexual orientation from the established majority.

It is no longer acceptable to be a politically and socially conservative white, Christian or Jewish, heterosexual male or female speaking one of the main-stream European Languages. Conservatives of other races are often even more unacceptable.

The liberal lunatic fringe has hijacked social media to elevate mob-rule and character assassination by “virtual lynching” to an art form.

What happened to the policy of “live and let live”?

Your views on gun ownership might be different to mine and I accept that there are many nut cases who should never be allowed to possess guns. However this attack, the one in Sydney recently, the two in Canada on military personnel both on and off duty and many of the mass shootings in schools and shopping centres in the US happened partly because the terrorists (and maniacs with a grudge at the schools), knew the victims would be unarmed.

It is one of the shameful consequences of disarming the law-abiding population in Australia, Canada and Europe and restricting the carrying of weapons in schools and cinemas in the USA.

I accept that handguns are not a good match for AK47s, and there may well have been some casualties in these incidents. But I am convinced they would have been far fewer had there been competent gun owners around to provide a defence.

Contrast these incidents with the experience of our terrorist wars in Rhodesia & South Africa when much higher numbers of terrorists did not break into homes and offices to kill the occupants because they knew that most of the people carried guns, knew how to use them effectively and were determined to use them to save lives, protect property and support the police in upholding the law.

The terrorists did cause casualties with bombs and landmines and by attacking the defenceless tribal population. One could argue that they were neither as rabidly brainwashed nor determined as Islamist fanatics or deranged students, but an armed and aware population was a huge deterrent.

The fact that I had guns and would use them, saved my life on more than one occasion without having to fire them.

My 65-year-old father was able to save his and my mother’s life when they were ambushed by 9 terrorists with AK47s because he had a gun and returned fire.

There was a report of an attempted armed robbery at a jewellery store on our local television news last night. It was foiled when an armed guard shot the robber in the leg, leading to his arrest.

The reporter was shocked that a security guard at a jewellery store had been armed. No congratulations that by his action he may have saved the lives of the staff, prevented a robbery and taken an armed criminal off the street.

A police spokesman was quoted as saying that the shooting would be investigated and that the guard may be charged with a firearms offence!

The mind boggles at that sort of attitude, is it any wonder that these terrorists and other nut cases think they can get away with their murderous acts.

Western culture, its Christian and secular values are under attack. We are allowing the enemy to use the advantages of our societies to launch their attacks. We are allowing the liberal fringe to protect the bad guys while emasculating the law-abiding population through political correctness and handicapping them by taking their guns away.

If our voters and leaders do not wake up soon, we will follow the Roman Empire into oblivion.

Last week an Islamist terrorist beheaded a woman at a food products factory in Oklahoma. He attempted to behead a second woman but was stopped when he was shot by the owner of the factory.

The liberal media and authorities are falling over themselves to portray the incident as a case of “workplace violence”. Given that the murderer was a recent convert to Islam and chose the ISIS terrorist group’s method of choice for the execution, that is a hugely implausible attempt at political correctness. Absolute nonsense, but that is a separate debate.

It’s just one more example of how guns in the hands of good guys save lives.

On another continent, guns saved my parents’ lives in a terrorist ambush. The knowledge that I had guns and would use them prevented our farm-house being overrun and my wife and I being severely assaulted or murdered in the Zimbabwe farm invasions.

If that beheading incident had taken place in Canada, the second victim would have had no chance. Gun laws here would have prevented the owner carrying a weapon or having one close to hand in a workplace.

In the unlikely event that the owner did manage to get his gun out of a locked gun safe, remove the trigger lock, get ammunition from a separate secure place and load the magazine in time to shoot the murderer, he would almost certainly have been charged with a number of firearm offences.

The West’s tolerance of demands for special treatment by immigrant minorities and tolerance of their disregard for local customs and laws is going to have serious consequences. I hope I am wrong, but I fear more incidents like the Oklahoma beheading.

Canada’s gun laws have left law-abiding citizens emasculated, unable to defend themselves and exposed to persecution by big government should they attempt to exert the most basic human rights of all. The right to life and to protect one’s family.

She was neither behind the wheel nor in the vehicle when the accident occurred, how can she possibly be convicted of any driving charge other than illegal parking or stopping on a highway?

If in fact that is always an offence. Vehicles do break down and stop of their own accord in the most inconvenient places.

The motor cyclist was travelling above the speed limit, a contributing factor in the accident.

In every country in which I have lived or driven and in many cases I have read about in Canada, the vehicle which runs into the rear of another is always the guilty party unless either a third vehicle or major mechanical failure caused the leading vehicle to stop without warning.

The prosecutors desperate attempt to obtain a jail sentence and remark that “a clear message is sent to society that we don’t stop for animals on the highway” smacks of a more vindictive and strange justice system than is found in many third world countries.

It is a source of absolute incredulity to me that the Canadian justice system refuses to accept that accidents do happen, its determination to find someone guilty of the most serious offence it can in every incident and to impose draconian punishments for incidents that would not be considered offences in many other countries.

Adding to the incredulity is the reluctance of the authorities to take action and use the necessary force against certain groups of protesters, aboriginal people blocking roads and rioting students destroying property being two examples. Compared to its heavy-handed treatment of others. Particularly older, white, male, licensed gun and property owners.

A few years ago, a major oil company in Alberta was fined a million dollars because 100 ducks drowned in a tailing pond. That makes an Albertan duck worth $10 000, but trying to save a duck in Quebec results in a criminal conviction and a possible jail sentence.

This week, Mosul, the second largest city in Iraq was quickly overrun by Islamist rebels. A few weeks before, Falujah was captured and is still in rebel hands.

Today it is reported that the same rebels have captured the town of Tikrit and a major oil installation and that up to 500 000 people are fleeing the captured areas.

The Iraqi army has proved totally ineffective, abandoning their posts after only putting up a token resistance to their attackers. Reports of officers being the first to run, leaving their men to their own devices.

This is one part of a larger movement to establish a separate state across the North of Iraq and Syria. A state controlled by brutal Sunni Islamists aligned with Al-Qaeda.

A former US ambassador to Iraq today suggested that now is the time to support “moderate” Syrian opposition with weapons so that they can defeat both President Assad and the Al-Qaeda linked Islamic State of Iraq and The Levant.

This could be a huge mistake for two reasons.

The Syrian opposition is in disarray, it has lost ground to government forces and is split into various factions ranging from pro West to those linked to Al-Qaeda.

There is more than a fair chance that any weapons supplied to “moderate” forces would soon find their way into Islamic militant’s hands.

Secondly and perhaps more importantly, there is no single strongman in the opposition camp to hold the ravaged country together should the campaign to oust Assad be successful.

Notwithstanding relative stability in Morocco and Tunisia, the failure of democracy to flourish in the countries affected by the turmoil of the “Arab Spring” indicates yet again that Western style democracy is not the best form of government for the countries in the region.

Under Mubarak, Egypt was more stable than it has been since he was overthrown. He was imprisoned because under his command some protesters were shot, but the new president is celebrated for squashing all opposition, while responsible for the deaths of greater numbers of protesters. Hundreds more have been sentenced to death.

Since the end of Gaddafi’s rule, Libya is fast becoming a failed state controlled by various militia. A threat to Europe because its lawlessness is providing a conduit for illegal migrants from across North Africa and beyond.

Before the civil war in Syria, there was relative peace and stability. Now there is chaos with millions of refugees creating huge problems for neighbouring states and hundreds of thousands of casualties.

If we turn a blind eye to the mass gassing of Kurds and a protracted war with Iran, Iraq under Saddam Hussein was fairly stable.

All those dictators were, by our standards, awful dictators, nasty and ruthless. But they kept control. What we consider “human rights” were denied to most citizens, but most of them stayed alive, had a roof over their heads and food to eat.

Thousands of American, British and other nations’ lives and billions of taxpayers dollars, pounds and euros have been lost in Iraq and Afghanistan trying to prop up systems that were doomed to fail.

It is becoming increasingly apparent that most of the countries now in turmoil need strong dictators, not ineffectual and unenforceable democracy, as unpalatable as that may be to sensitive liberals in the West.

Many of the borders in the region were lines on a map drawn by the colonial powers early in the last century. It seems that Al Qaeda determined to replace them with the originals.

The West does not need an unholy alliance between a strong Syria under Assad and a radical Iran with nuclear capability. It needs that and a new state controlled by Al Qaeda even less.

It’s time to put our Western arrogance aside and accept that peace and stability in the region will only come when strong, effective and probably ruthless, leaders fight their way to the top.

With hindsight, the West should certainly have propped up Mubarak and there is now a case for suggesting many lives would have been saved in Libya, Iraq and Syria if we had left the despots in place and not weakened by sanctions.

Media reports indicate that Donald Stirling has sold the LA Clippers for $2 billion – way above the $700 million bandied about when the NBA launched the crusade against him.

Now it appears that he is suing the organisation for $2 billion.

It might be unlikely that he will get anything like that amount, it doesn’t matter. Winning the case will be a huge blow for common sense and a clear victory over political correctness and the tyranny of the intolerant left.

It will also be a sharp reminder to pompous sports administrators that they do not get to play God and that private conversations are just that – private.

It is a sad day when we have to fear expressing our own opinions in our own homes.

Donald Stirling might still have the last laugh in this ridiculous saga.

Is this a sign that the pendulum is reaching the end of its swing towards intolerance of mainstream values, away from common sense and respect for individual rights?

What a wonderful world, 60 000 Silicon Valley employees are to receive a share of a $325 million settlement of a class action lawsuit against Apple and Google, Intel and Adobe. The settlement still has to be approved by a federal judge.

Is it because the employees were unfairly dismissed? Discriminated against?

No, it is because the authorities allege that the high-tech companies (and others named in a separate suit) colluded in an “anti-poaching” pact. They agreed not to try to lure each others top-level technology workers.

Note, they did not agree not to hire each others workers if the workers left one employer and applied for a position at another of his or her own accord.

So what is the problem?

In areas or industries with shortages of talent or skilled workers, it does not make sense to encourage an environment of widespread poaching from competitors. That leads to a merry-go-round of people continually hopping from employer to employer, reduced productivity and escalating costs.

Certainly not in the interests of customers and only of benefit to those employees looking for short-term gains, not building long-term careers.

While businesses will often try to entice key players, it has long been the practice in many industries not to embark on widespread poaching.

Now, if the award is finalised, employees on average will receive $4000 for doing absolutely nothing. That cost will be born by the customers and shareholders of those companies.

How many of those workers would have jumped to better paying jobs at one of the other employers in the group if there had been no pact? It is unlikely that it would have been a huge percentage.

As far as I am aware, there is no slave labour in the USA, no one is forced to work for Apple, Google or any other business. If you don’t like your employer’s conditions, policies, hiring practices or pay scales, go and find another job or start your own business.

Don’t hold out your hand and ask the government to make your employer and every one else pay you a bonus for what you think you might have been entitled to.

Sadly, another symptom of the times we live in. Too much interference by big government.

A month ago, 300 schoolgirls were abducted by Islamic terrorists in Northern Nigeria. Their school was destroyed

The Nigerian government made almost no effort to find and release them.

For three weeks there was little reaction from world leaders, few comments in traditional or social media. A deafening silence from feminist groups and all those crusaders for “equal rights” who attack opponents of politically correct causes – same-sex marriage, for example, with such fervour.

More girls were abducted, some escaped and returned home. More attacks from Bakar Haram.

Videos of the girls, now in Islamic dress, were recorded with demands for captured terrorists to be freed in exchange for the girls release.

Angry and frustrated at the lack of response by the Nigerian government, families of the captured girls start protesting and demanding action.

Information released by external organisations suggests that the Nigerian government had been warned of an imminent attack on the school.

It is alleged that the warning was taken so seriously by some teachers that their own children were removed from the school.

Almost a month after the abduction, the outside world woke up and took action.

What did it do? Several nations sent token forces of “advisors” to help the Nigerian forces. Surveillance planes have been offered.

A new secret weapon was announced by the First Lady of the USA.

The hashtag.

Now we see the leaders of the former super powers and other countries, agonising over the fate of the schoolgirls.

What a pathetic spectacle.

I have great sympathy for the abducted girls and their families, but hashtag bearing First Ladies, tweets, placards and pontificating presidents are not going to get the girls back.

Only resolute action can do that.

That means capable, determined men on the ground with the skill and will to hunt the terrorists down and shoot them.

But there is no one to do it.

The Nigerian government has proved itself incapable of stopping Bakar Haram.

Western governments have no stomach for armed conflict in Africa.

Neighbouring African states have neither the ability nor interest to take on Bakar Haram.

The seeds of this abduction and much of the misery affecting the ordinary people in Africa were sown many decades ago. Not when Africa was colonised as liberals are so ready to suggest.

Africa was a violent and brutal continent centuries before the first Europeans arrived.

The real problems started after a few decades of explosive population growth thanks to the introduction of Western systems of hygiene, medical care, education and food production.

After introducing these systems, in the 19th and early 20th centuries, by the late 1950s and 1960s, the former colonial powers were abandoning their former colonies with indecent haste.

Leaving millions of people at the mercy of inept, corrupt and brutal dictators like Mobutu in Zaire (now Democratic Republic of Congo) and a succession of military officers installed in armed coups in Nigeria. Similar examples, ranging from madmen like Idi Amin of Uganda to inept social meddlers like Nyerere of Tanzania had equally devastating effects on most of the continent.

The only two countries to buck the trend, maintain law and order, grow their economies and increase living standards substantially, were South Africa and Rhodesia.

Why the difference? Because these were the only two countries on the continent to resist one-man-one-vote, retain efficient, relatively incorruptible governments. Effective administrative systems kept the economy expanding despite, sanctions, terrorist wars and for South Africa, floods of illegal immigrants escaping the harsh reality of life in independent Africa.

There was however a huge problem.

The government of the only two successful countries on the continent were exclusively white.

That was unacceptable to those who had already ruined their own countries and to weak Western leaders more interested in appeasing murderous dictators than the well-being of millions of people of all races on the southern tip of the continent.

Rhodesia and the old efficient, viable, South Africa are gone, sacrificed on the altar of appeasement. Replaced by the corrupt and economic basket case of Zimbabwe and an ANC controlled South Africa heading down the same slope.

In the most recent version of violent transfer of power on the continent, it is Bakar Haram, and other terrorist groups, Islamic or not, taking advantage of ineffective governments to seize control of vast areas of Africa with their campaigns of terror.

Until the unfortunate residents of countries like Nigeria have governments that can govern effectively, the problem is not going away.

Now is the time for the West to get tough with those governments, cut off all aid, funding, assistance until the governments show some responsibility. Exercise the same rabid tenacity to stop African rulers squandering revenues or stashing funds in tax havens as the authorities do to law-abiding Western citizens taking advantage of legal loopholes.

Only then should material assistance to fight terrorism be given. Weapons and equipment sent now will almost certainly find their way into Bakar Haram’s arsenals to be used to capture more schoolgirls and kill thousands more innocent people.

His comments, if they were correctly quoted, were not the most sensible considering many of his team and fans are black. They may have upset many people, but on the long list of serious problems in the world today, no reasonable person can rate them near the top.

However, they were made in a private conversation. One that was not intended to be made public.

For a country that claims to be against racism and for freedom of speech, the escalation of this incident and the resulting punishment of Mr. Stirling borders on the insane.

As a victim of far more serious racism than a derogatory comment in a private conversation, I am appalled at both the hysteria that this incident has generated and the reverse discrimination visited on Mr. Stirling.

For the record, my father was murdered, my mother crippled for life. Later, I was thrown in a police cell while my farm and all my assets were illegally taken from me by the Zimbabwe government. All because we were white. That is the sort of racism every one should be concerned about.

Do I blame all black people for that? Of course not.

The most irresponsible and malicious actors in this sad saga are the person who “leaked” the conversation to the media, the media channel that publicised it and all those in both public and private office who have used it to make themselves look good.

Here’s why:

It was a private conversation.

Who among us can honestly say that they have never made a derogatory comment about a group of people in a private conversation. I cannot and I don’t think many others can.

How many times do we hear criticism of Democrats, Republicans, Conservatives, Liberals, Bankers, Oil executives, the Rich, the poor, the homeless, Southerners, Newfies, Italians, Germans, Russians or any other nationality?

What about criticism of religions, Christians, Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists? Or sports teams, the police, the military?

As a former white resident of Southern Africa, now living in North America, I frequently have to ignore allegations of my obviously “terrible attitude to, and treatment of, black people”.

I know that these comments are made from ignorance by people who have no idea of the real situation in my former countries and who have been subjected to anti South African and anti Rhodesian propaganda for most of their lives.

While I may not like the comments, I understand that people are as free to make them as I am to publish my opinions and Donald Stirling is to express his in a private conversation.

The comments were not illegal

At the time of writing there has been no indication that the comments broke any laws.

Donald Stirling is a wealthy man who may be quite happy to sell his team for the $600 to $700 million it is reported to be worth. It’s poetic justice that he will realise a huge profit on his original $12 million investment if he does sell the team.

It would be supremely ironic if he chose to disband the team, but I doubt if anybody would walk away from that sort of money.

Will he go on the counter attack and sue who ever he can? Again much as I would like to see it, I think the deck is stacked against him.

Unethical manipulation of an owners association

If the man has not committed a crime, it is entirely unethical for the NBA to exert pressure on the owners association to expel him. It is also wrong for him to be expelled from the association and banned for life while he legally owns a team.

This treatment establishes a dangerous precedent akin to Hitler’s persecution of the Jews in the 1930’s. Then it started with smashing shop windows. Now it’s by banning an owner from enjoying free use of his assets.

It gives unsuccessful businesses the ability to raise charges of racism to unfairly eliminate competitors in the knowledge that even if the charges are completely unfounded, the media will ensure that damage is done.

Other than the reversed shirt incident, it does not appear that any team members have expressed their disapproval by walking away from the team. Their outrage is not sufficient to jeopardise lucrative contracts.

What would the NBA do if the team expressed solidarity with the owner and demanded that he continue as owner?

The USA trumpets the virtues of the free market system. The market should decide Donald Stirling’s fate, not the self-righteous advocates of totalitarianism that seek to control the thoughts and comments of a nation.

The end of free speech

It is an unacceptable use of thought and speech control, the same mob rule mentality that hounded Brendan Eich from his job a few weeks ago has struck another victim.

Who will be next, will it be you because you said something that a politician or someone in the media did not like?

Why this attitude is unhealthy

When a child comes to his or her mother with a minor scratch, she treats it with the appropriate amount of first aid and leaves it to nature and time to heal.

She does not poke it with a stick to make it much worse and then call the media to show the festering wound to the nation.

That’s what the over hyped reaction to incidents like this does, turn a minor scratch into a festering sore.

Like minor scratches, incidents like these should be left alone for time and nature to heal, not used to provoke racial tension and victimize people.

Why should incidents like this provoke such over-reaction? More hysteria than in some countries with histories of interracial conflict?

Is it lingering guilt over slavery? Or guilt over the almost total annihilation of the indigenous populations of North America and their reduction to powerless minorities? Or the success of the politically correct liberal left in dividing the moderate majority and stifling any opinion other than its own.

The American Middle Class is no longer the world’s wealthiest, it has been caught by Canada. Many other nations are catching up.

This alarming situation is shown in the results of surveys over the last 35 years, for more details here is a link to an article on The Upshot – New York Times of 22 April 2014.

As predictably as night follows day, this catastrophe is being blamed on rising “Income Inequality” in the USA. Claims that the “American Dream” is in ruins. I have written before, that except in a true communist society, income inequality is a natural and desirable condition.

Comparing the lifestyle of the third generation Kim in North Korea with the miserable existence of most of that country’s citizens shows that “income inequality” is alive and well under that and every other, brand of communism tried so far.

It is self-evident that unless every person in a society or nation, was restricted to the same government imposed income, equality of income would be impossible.

If two or more amounts or measures of anything are not identical, they are by definition not equal. Therefore inequality must exist, not only in incomes, but in size of houses, cost of cars, physical prowess and the length of each of our lives.

If the socialist ideal of income equality is unattainable, why does the liberal left keep on promoting it?

Because “income inequality” has far more guilt inducing emotion attached to it than the various other descriptions of varying income levels.

Income Disparity is the correct term to describe the range of incomes earned by people at various levels of; economic activity, success or failure, in a free enterprise society.

That is not to suggest that a wide range of income disparity should not be of concern. Huge, real or perceived differences between the haves and have-nots are the powder-kegs of revolution.

The problem both of the vanishing middle class and income disparity becomes one of relativity.

A member of the middle class in North America living reasonably well but by no means considered wealthy, may feel justified in complaining about a CEO of a major corporation receiving a salary and bonus package amounting to millions of dollars.

However that same unhappy North American cannot accept that compared to a labourer in a third world country earning perhaps $3 a day, he or she is wealthy beyond that person’s wildest dreams.

While our comfortable middle class North American or European calls for an income cap on CEOs he conveniently ignores the fact that many sports and entertainment celebrities’ earnings are at obscenely high levels.

That same middle class critic of “the rich” would resist any attempt to cap his or her earnings.

The relative numbers of unskilled immigrants in a society will affect each countries’ range of incomes and position on the scale of middle class wealth. That alone is a factor in Canada’s favour over the USA. Geography, climate and recently, under a Conservative government, a stricter immigration policy, making it a less desirable destination for poor, unskilled immigrants, legal or illegal.

The way to reduce the extremes of income disparity is to help, encourage, provoke, entice or plain push those at the bottom of the range to move up. Not reduce every one else to the level of the lowest.

There will always be ultra rich and there will always be very poor people, it’s been the same throughout history and there are parallels in nature.

Artificially trying to narrow the gap with income restraints, excessive taxation or other policies aimed at the higher income earners will only cause them to take their higher earning abilities elsewhere.

Along with their ability to create jobs and opportunities for those who want to rise up the income gradient by their own efforts.

It appears that those dangers are now coming back to haunt the new government.

The same factors are now almost certainly hindering the West’s ability to effectively respond to the Russian annexation of Crimea and fomenting of demands for autonomy in Eastern Ukraine.

While most reasonable supporters of democracy will approve of the ousting of former President Yanukovich, the means by which it was achieved were anything but democratic.

It’s somewhat illogical to celebrate mob rule in one part of the country and then condemn the same actions in another.

The new government is now becoming painfully aware of the consequences of its takeover as it contemplates its options in the East.

There were calls for the former president and some of his officials to be tried for war crimes because some protesters were shot.

Is that why the new government is so scared of using force to evict the illegal occupiers of government buildings in Eastern towns?

It is a real predicament, use too much force resulting in casualties, alienate the pro-Russian population, risk accusations of war crimes, invite an invasion by Russian troops.

Don’t use force and see an increasing number of Eastern towns and regions become lawless, controlled by mobs and ripe for annexation by Russia.

Governments have to govern, as distasteful as it may be, the government in Ukraine must take resolute action to regain control of the whole country quickly.

The alternative is a partitioned Ukraine and increased risk of Russian sponsored agitation in other countries which were formerly part of the USSR.

The big question is why the new government did not take immediate steps to bolster the security at its buildings and defence of cities in the East as soon as the Russian activities in Crimea commenced.

Was it concern over the loyalty of its troops? Was it the naivety of a new government? Was it inexperienced leadership?